 Hi, welcome everyone. Thank you for joining us for this great press conference we have today. The press conference is sponsored by the Richard Roth law firm. And Richard Roth is the lead counsel for the attorneys and journalists that have sued the CIA and for violating their Fourth Amendment protections. I'm just going to give a quick overview on the process and what the order of speakers will be for the press conference. And then I'm going to give some contact information in case any journalists would like to speak to any of the plaintiffs or to Richard or anybody else afterwards. As I said earlier, the first Richard Roth can raise your hand, or no, people can recognize you. Richard Roth is the lead counsel and he'll be the first speaker giving an overview and what the news, which is kind of a historic event. After Richard speaks, we're going to turn it over to Stephen Rody, who is a constitutional law expert and a retired civil rights attorney who doesn't need a lot of introduction for the work he's done in all the years past. After Stephen, we're going to have Deb Herbeck. And Deb is another plaintiff and she is a media attorney based out of New York City who has decided to sue the CIA. After that, we'll turn it over to Nathan Fuller. And Nathan is the director of the Assange Defense Campaign here in the United States. Then we'll open it up for some Q&A for any reporters or journalists who have any questions. If you want to reach me after the press event, feel free to email me, Trevor, t-r-e-v-o-r-f-g at protonmail.com. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Roth. Thank you, Trevor. We are actually very excited that on Tuesday of this week, December 19th, 2023, Judge Cotel rendered a decision on the CIA's motion to dismiss the entire complaint brought by individuals who went to the Ecuadorian embassy to rewind the tape. In about August of 2022, we commenced the lawsuit. That is, the individuals, American individuals who went to the Ecuadorian embassy to visit Julian Assange, commenced a certain of them, commenced the lawsuit, alleging that there was a wrongful search and seizure. They actually, everything they brought with them to the embassy, their phone, their Apple iPads, their laptops, their computers, were handed over to the embassy, which they thought was for safe keeping. Little did they know, as the complaint alleges, was there an agreement between the CIA and another entity, MC Global, wherein the CIA actually imaged everything on the computers and the phones and brought it back down to Langley. So we brought a lawsuit against the CIA and Mike Pompeo back in August of 2022, saying you can't do that. There's a Fourth Amendment right. You can't just image a computer and think about it. Imaging lawyers' computers that have sensitive information, imaging doctors' computers that have medical information about the patient who was Julian Assange. So you just can't do that. So we brought a lawsuit in August of 2022. The first thing the CIA did was it actually made a motion to dismiss, which we expected. We expect this to be a long, hard fight. And after a lot of papers back and forth, a decision and oral argument, a decision was rendered this week on Tuesday wherein the judge said, you know what? You're right. The CIA can't do that. They denied the motion to dismiss by the CIA, which essentially was our complaint that they couldn't image computers and laptops and phones. The court granted part of the motion. They let Pompeo out. They also let out other allegations. But the meat of this case remains in it, which is, quite frankly, a very, very big win against the Central Intelligence Agency and the federal government. And the court in its decision actually said that it recited our complaint where we were and we alleged in April 2017 Pompeo pledged that his office would embark in a long-term campaign to destroy WikiLeaks. So we are very thrilled by the result. Quite frankly, we're happy that the court rejected the CIA's efforts to essentially silence these plaintiffs who merely speak to expose the CIA's attempts to carry out Pompeo's vendetta against Asanj and WikiLeaks. With that said, so what happens next? So now that the motion was denied, we have discovery. We will get documents. As all of you on the phone most likely know, there's a lawsuit in Spain that's pending wherein they have a lot of documents, which we're going to get, which essentially discloses the relation between UC Global and the CIA and what Pompeo asked for and what they took. So we're going to sort of, in pair with the Spanish proceeding, we're going to get documents. We're going to get agreements between the CIA and UC Global. We're going to get emails. We're going to get all kinds of information. Then we're going to start taking depositions. We're going to take Mike Pompeo's deposition. We're going to take depositions of operatives who are actually in the Ecuadorian embassy. So it's a long road. We expect it to be difficult. None of this is easy. But we are very thrilled that the federal court judge, who's been sitting since 1994, 30 years, he was appointed by Bill Clinton, saw our case and said, no, there's something there. So with that said, I'll turn it over, Stephen, but we are very happy, in fact, thrilled that this case will proceed against the CIA. Thank you. I don't think the importance of this case can be overemphasized. This is the intersection of a case involving freedom of speech and government surveillance. It's the intersection of the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment. It is rare for civil litigants to be able to get past the pleading stage in a case and to move into the discovery that Richard Roth has described. It's rare because the government, as much as they are fighting to extradite and prosecute Julian Assange, fight to keep secrets. They fight to conceal information from the American people and people across the world in this case. So it is significant that a case survives a motion to dismiss. This was the first shot by the CIA to throw the entire case out. Certain claims were trimmed down. Under a legal theory, Mike Pompeo was removed as a personal defendant, but he is still subject to deposition to sworn testimony. And as this case proceeds, I think the fact that this lawsuit will provide the bright disinfectant of sunlight into what the CIA conspired to do. We've been able this lawsuit carves out the peace of these lawyers and others visiting Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy for the simple act of seeing him, supporting him, talking and listening to him. And for that, it's alleged that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the intrusive imaging of their various devices. It should worry any American. It should worry anyone across the world who visits a foreign embassy that the CIA will, in this case, take those kinds of actions. I think it's a critical case. It's rare for cases against the government generally, or the CIA in particular, to reach the discovery phase. And I think it's going to be a case to watch carefully as the discovery emerges and as the case eventually proceeds to trial. Thank you, Stephen. I'm Deborah Herback. I'm an attorney, a media lawyer, and I'm one of the plaintiffs in this case. I think that this case is really important because it shows that the government has been so determined to keep Julian Assange behind bars that it's willing to trample on the constitutional rights of American lawyers and journalists. This should really shock the conscience of anyone who cares about democracy or the First Amendment. And it's particularly noteworthy that a federal court judge had the courage to recognize the illegality of the government's activities in its persecution of Julian Assange while the media itself has been paying very little attention. The lack of support from the media for WikiLeaks and for Julian Assange proves how successful the government has been in chilling journalists from calling out this assault on press freedom. As a media lawyer, I am outraged by the weaponizing of the Espionage Act to silence the routine activities of investigative journalists. The criminalization of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange sets a very dangerous precedent for any journalist or publication anywhere in the world who dares to report on or publish information that the US government deems harmful to its interests. Each of the 18 charges and the indictment against Assange relates to WikiLeaks' publication in 2010 and 2011 of evidence of war crimes committed by the US government leaked by Chelsea Manning. Countless other journalists from mainstream publications reported on the very same leaks. Isn't that the press' job? Yet it's only Julian Assange who has been holed up in maximum security prison for almost five years and through a combination of silence and collusion by the press, the government is succeeding in criminalizing investigative journalism. Why isn't WikiLeaks entitled to the same press freedoms enjoyed by the mainstream media publications and every other news outlet because it's an online only publication? Has that supposed differentiation stood the test of time? Do we really think that online journalists are not worthy of First Amendment protections? If we don't act our window into government activities is going to be closed shut. It's time for mainstream media to put pressure on the Department of Justice to drop the charges and drop the extradition proceeding against Julian Assange and we very much hope that this case, which we've had an astounding victory in so far, will help shine a light on the outrageous injustice that's being perpetrated. Thank you very much, Deb. Okay, Nathan, why don't we talk a little bit about what the Assange Defense Campaign has brewing in light of this campaign, but also the potential extradition of Julian to the United States? All right, thanks, Trevor, and thanks everybody for being here. I'm Nathan Fuller at assangedefense.org for the US based campaign for Julian Assange's freedom. I'm really excited about this development as an effort to hold the CAA accountable. I can also see it as kind of microcosmic of what WikiLeaks does in efforts to hold governments accountable. That's what this is all about. So this is just yet another step in this long story and it's a really exciting one because the CAA gets away with a lot. It's as Stephen has made clear, it's not often that they're brought to court, let alone past the pleading stage. So just kudos to all of you in this case, but yeah, I wanna put this in the bigger context of the Assange Campaign. We've got a lot of news in the Assange case just in these last few days. In addition to this court case, we also have heard that in the UK, Julian's appeal will be heard February 20th and 21st in London. That is the last stage in the UK domestic level. That's so this is potentially the last barrier to extradition. We could see an Assange extradition within the next few months, it's possible. So this is really urgent and it's really urgent that people are paying more attention to this. I'm hoping that people paying attention to this case and efforts to hold the CAA accountable will then learn a little bit more about the rest of this case. Longer efforts to hold the government accountable, including the 2010 publication of war logs and State Department cables that were incredibly newsworthy and the only one going to jail for the crimes exposed there is the person who exposed them. So yeah, we have had some other exciting developments here in the United States. Of course, around the world's politicians in Australia, Europe, South America have been sounding the alarms over the Assange case for years now, but finally US politicians are getting on board. We've had two letters go through Congress writing to the Department of Justice calling on Attorney General Merrick Garland to drop these charges specifically because they are a threat to the First Amendment and the right to publish anywhere, everywhere. So the first letter had a whole bunch of Democrats. The second letter was bipartisan. We also now have a resolution introduced by Paul Gosar going through Congress that has picked up about eight cosponsors already, Republicans and Democrats alike. So more and more people are seeing on both sides of the aisle how important this case is and why it matters to them and their future, even if they thought it was just some far away legal case in London, this really matters for their future. So yeah, please check out asangedefense.org continually. We'll post updates on the CIA case, but also on the UK appeal efforts and other developments here in the US. Thanks everybody. Nathan, this is Trevor. I have just a quick question. What can people do? What can the public do to most make a difference? Yeah, so now is the time when we're seeing that Congress members, representatives are responding to constituent pressure. Write in, call in to your representative and say, hey, look, so many others are putting their neck out there. Others are putting their names on these resolutions. So it's H-934, call your representative, ask them to sign on to this, ask them to call for the DOJ to drop these charges. This could happen, we could have resolution in the UK court, but I wanna remind people, it's the US that has the power to drop this at any time. Merrick Garland could just drop the charges at any time. So we finally have a whole lot of representatives calling, but we need more. So please contact your representative in your home state and get them to join the cause. Hi, can I ask a question? This is Cara from Newsmax and the Gateway Pundit. One of the things I've wanted to know, I don't know if anyone has in contact with Julian Assange, is he doing well mentally? Like I've been wondering that for a while. Like is he still, from what I understand, he's like, I mean, he's been in jail for a while now. I don't know if he's suffering mentally, but how is he doing? How is the state of mind? Yeah, I don't know if anyone else here is more capable to talk about this, but unfortunately, we don't get to hear from Julian. He's, yeah, we don't know, you know, specific updates about his mental health situation. Of course, that was a big factor in his extradition hearing from 2020 to 2021. And that was the initial barrier for extraditing him. So we know that he has endured a whole lot of psychological abuse, including torturous conditions at various times throughout this persecution. So it's safe to say he's not doing well. I don't have specific updates on anything more recent, but he's been through a brutal ordeal, and that takes a serious toll. Does anyone know his like his conditions in the jail is meaning like, is he in solitary confinement, or is he mixed in with other people? Like, is he, what is his situation? The last, we haven't heard reports on that for quite a while. He was, at one point, was in a kind of, administrative type of solitary confinement when he was thrown into the medical ward in prison in London, but we think that he was taken out of that medical ward. So no, we don't have more specific updates on his condition currently in prison. But he's going to be extraditing him here for sure? No, so February 20th and 21st is an appeal hearing in the UK. He is appealing the decision to extradite him. So, and after that, if he loses that, he will appeal at the European Court of Human Rights. It's unclear if that court would hear the case, but there's at least one potential avenue still left before extradition. So they're trying to, so I understand, because I'm very interested in this. They're trying to try him here in the United States. I've got some questions about the CAA case. You know. Would you say, Joe? Yeah, I think Joe said it would be good to keep questions on topic to the CAA lawsuit if possible. It would be best to do so if, but... And you should wait till you're called on as well. Wait till you're called on. But Cara, I'll catch up with you afterwards also to give you the information you're looking for. Thank you. Yeah, of course. So Q&A. Do any other journalists, is that Lee? You have a question. You're muted, Lee. Lee, you're on mute. On your computer, Lee, it says you're muted. If you can't fix it, you can always put it in the chat, put the question in the chat, if that's easier. Forgive me, sorry about that. I gotta find the screen. I want to address the issue of Jewish mental health. And I don't know anything firsthand, but here's what I know. I've had strokes, that's why it was like this. And Julian Assange has had strokes. I was out in Belmarsh when Julian was taking from the university covering the story. And Belmarsh is all a big dungeon-like prison. And when I think about Julian Assange suffering strokes, being in that place, that would make anyone nuts. It's frightening. I mean, a stroke, if you're in a hospital, is frightening. But to be in that condition, I think is torture that I think a lot of people may not think about, but hits home to me. And so that's what I want to say, that what's being done to Assange, I think is a form of torture. Thanks, Lee. Where could we read, I don't know how to raise my hand. So I would like to ask to be called on like the other gentlemen, so nicely pointed out, but I don't know how to raise my hand. So I just have a question, if that's okay. Yeah, go ahead. Is there a press release available regarding the CIA lawsuit? We did put one out. We put out a statement, and I'll email it to you. Okay. It's a very simple one page, or the decision is 27 pages long. The judge took a lot of time and carefully reviewed each of the, there were a lot of reasons why the CIA wanted this case dismissed and the judge went through every single one of them. So we have a one page press release. If you want, we can also send you the decision. Great, thank you. Can I ask a question about the lawsuit? Yes. So I would like to understand whether this lawsuit will be, do you think you will be able to get some information about the metadata because according to the Spanish lawyers, the United States has refused to cooperate with the metadata about the emails from the United States to UC Global, especially from the Sheldon Edelson Resort. So do you think the judge will be able to order UC Global or the CIA? I don't know the mechanism here to provide an answer to the international regulatory as a result of these lawsuits? Yeah, that's a really good question. My understanding is that the government, the US government has been essentially ignoring the Spanish courts. And the answer is yes, we will be seeking all of the information that relates to both UC Global and the CIA. And as much as the CIA can play games for lack of a better word with the Spanish courts, it can't with the federal court judge. This federal court judge will not put up with any, they won't be ignoring subpoenas, they won't be, they can't refuse to respond. They're gonna try their best to narrow the scope of everything because as you can imagine, there's probably a tremendous amount of data. But no, we plan on vigorously going after all of that information. We wanna get the relationship between the parties. We wanna get the communications. We wanna know what they've taken. There's a lot. Oh, and the federal court judge is gonna deem all of that to be not only relevant but necessary. So yes, I think we'll be much more, by denying the motion and letting us proceed in New York, I think we are in a much better position against the CIA because they can't just ignore a federal court judge. This is amazing. I'm one of the journalists most heavily targeted among the media partners. However, I'm a European citizen. I'm an Italian citizen. Do I have any hope to get anything like this even if I'm not a US citizen? Well, are you saying do you have a hope of getting the information or being a plaintiff? Getting the information. So the answer is, we will see. The CIA is going to clearly want to have a confidentiality agreement between everything that's produced, claiming there's all kinds of secrets. And we're gonna have to, it will probably be a fight with the CIA and federal court, but our goal is to, which sort of, Nathan, it's funny, this sort of is in line with WikiLeaks entire model. Our goal is for transparency. Our goal is to get that information to the CIA and to allow people like you and anyone else to see it. It's not, we are doing it through a different avenue, but it's the same result. We will arguably argue that this stuff should be produced and it should not be sealed in any way. Wow, last question. How many months or years do you think this process will require? Another very good question. So look, because we're in federal court, it will go a little quicker. However, we have a conference in the middle of January with counsel for the CIA to determine dates. My assumption is that we should be well into discovery by the fall of 2024, I would say. What's gonna happen is we take our discovery, the CIA will make another motion to dismiss. It's called the summary judgment motion. So I think you're gonna get a lot of developments this year. The trial, if we get that far, will most likely be next year. But certainly we're going to, we're gonna be, not only are we gonna seek this information, but we want it now. And so I would expect by the summer or fall, we're gonna know, you're gonna know a lot more about this case. Can I ask one last question? So this week, The Guardian Australia published one of my documents, which I got through the FY litigation in the US against the State Department. And this document reveals that the US diplomacy monitored the Assange supporters in Australia. There basically, there is not a description in this. It was a confidential now for a US diplomatic cables. And it was declassified through my FY litigation. There are no details about this monitoring. It's not clear whether they spy or whether they just look at the public protest. If we got more information, would it be a prostitutionally? I mean, if they spy, for example, on US protesters, on US supporters of Julian, would it be, could they apply for, could they file a lawsuit like you did, like Deborah did for her visit in the embassy? So the answer is no, the only defense they have is they're gonna claim that there's a lot of documents that we are not entitled to as civil litigants, but they are not gonna, I'm not worried about them filing a lawsuit or any way going after the plaintiffs here or anyone else. And in particular, with regard to that one wire cable that you mentioned, the more information we have on it, the better because we can ask very targeted document requests. We can ask for all documents that refer relate to that particular cable and they're either, they will most likely object, nothing is easy when you're with the federal government, but it will be a fight and we would want that information. But their only defense right now really is to continue to try to ward off this lawsuit and minimize the production. And then they're gonna make another motion after discovery. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. If I could, if I may add- Richard, let me in. Yes, go on. I just wanna add because I think it needs to be highlighted. In the press statement you have and in the 27 page opinion, the judge emphasized the allegations of how the CIA and Mike Pompeo tipped their hand by saying that they were going to launch a long-term campaign and other specific allegations that you have in front of you. That allows discovery to look into that kind of internal planning. We have other information that the CIA considered various plots to assassinate Julian Assange. So the CIA will fight tooth and nail to narrow discovery, but the scope of discovery is defined by the allegations in the complaint. And the judge has already seen the relevance of the allegations that Mike Pompeo announced, a campaign against Julian Assange. I think that's gonna be very significant. I think it's going to allow Mr. Roth significant targeted but relevant discovery. And I think in that fashion we are gonna learn a lot more than we know today about what goes on behind the scenes and this decade's long effort to target not only Julian Assange but his supporters. I'm assuming that you or no one on your team has security clearance. Of course there's a chance and you're probably worried that they might use or are you worried they might use the state secrets privilege to withhold what they would call classified. Meteor which very well might be protecting their own backsides actually. And if you get over that hurdle, if you get over that hurdle, what are the chances of a trial? And I'm assuming you're not interested in settling. You think they might try to do that? Well, so let me hit one at a time. We do not have clearance. They are going to argue state secrets. Our argument is that these cannot be state secrets. Without a search warrant, you don't have the ability to go through information. And like Steven just said, our complaint, relevancy is determined by the four corners of the complaint. Our complaint starts with a Pompeo speech and goes forward all the way to all the invasiveness that the government was involved in. So our argument is that it is all relevant for purposes of our case. It doesn't, they're not giving us any confidential information, state secrets about what the CIA is doing, what they're doing other than wrongfully targeting these individuals who should never have been targeted. So I think the judge are gonna give us a lot of latitude in that regard. And oh, as far as settlement goes. So yeah, we don't have any, we have no desire to settle this. We believe that what the CIA did as Deb, so just brilliantly pointed out, was just outrageous. And so we want, it's important for the people in this country to understand that the government has limitations. They can't stomp on you. And that's the purpose of this lawsuit to not let them stomp on my client. It's just like they're doing on Julian. And so we don't expect to settle this case. We do expect to, part of the, one of the reasons for this lawsuit is to bring to light what the federal government is doing behind closed doors. Deborah, can I ask you if you've reached out to anybody in mainstream media to cover this story and what kind of responses did you get from them? Because they're clearly not doing it. Well, you know, I've been, everyone was notified about this press conference, Trevor, maybe you can speak more specifically to who's been reached out to or in how. But generally just as a viewer of the press, I'm just horrified that this isn't stored, not necessarily our case, but that what's been going on with Julian and how he's been treated as a journalist for basically doing his job and exposing what the government is doing in our name by way of war crimes. The press doesn't seem to care. And we're supposedly the liberal press is supposedly so concerned about Trump coming in and stamping all over the constitution. Well, so am I, but why are we, why are we letting this happen right now before there's any authoritarian government, you know, making it happen? We're just saying, hands up, sure. Trump all over our rights, we don't care. And I think it's because the media is concerned about national security media, national security journalists have relationships with government agencies that they rely on for sourcing. They also don't want to annoy the government in a way that would end up with them being persecuted in the same way that Julian Assange has been. So they've been, you know, understandably scared, but it's time to step up but we're not gonna have a free press. Does anybody know if the Central Intelligence Agency as an organization has ever stood trial anywhere at any court in, oh, Stefania, at the end. You muted, you muted Stefania, you muted. Yes, sorry. We are the only country in which the 26 Americans, most of them, 25 of them were CIA agents responsible for the extraordinary rendition of a buomar. They received a final sentence. So they cannot, and there is still a European arrest warrant. So the moment they travel to Europe, they get arrested if they travel under their own identity. And indeed, one of them was traveling to India because her mother was seriously ill and she was arrested in Portugal due to this arrest warrant by the Italian prosecutors. So they were put on trial in absentia because in Italy it is possible to put people on trial in absentia and they receive a final sentence. And the head of the CIA in Italy also had these properties seized by the out prosecutors. He had a wonderful villa in Piedmont and it was seized by out prosecutors. However, none of them went to prison even if they received a final sentence because we now know, thanks to the WikiLeaks cables that they put pressure on all our politicians both conservative and progressive and our prosecutors and our, sorry, and our politicians refused to forward the arrest warrant to the US. So six justice ministers refused to forward the arrest warrant for the, even if they had received a final sentence. However, they were put on trial. They were sentenced. But those are individuals, not the CIA. In this case, Pompeo was off the hook now, isn't he? Oh, you're right. Yeah, I'm not aware. I would defer to Steve. I don't know if he's aware of any case where the CIA was a civil defendant. I'm not aware of any. The greatest success has been under the Freedom of Information Act. There have been successful cases brought to secure documents and sometimes remove the redaction on documents. So to that extent, there's been a trial, but it is very rare. I would have to search back through the history of the CIA to see a full public trial in the United States where the CIA was a defendant. And where there accused of a constitutional breach here, not at the FOIA. That's exactly right. They worked. I mean, their conduct will be put on trial, which is very different than the Freedom of Information Act request. If you ask for information, they don't give it, they can be sued. But here, Jody, your point, we are putting their conduct on trial. If in fact we can, we will get the agreements with the UC Global, that the documents that show that they were monitoring, the fact that they were bringing this information back to Langley, their conduct will be on trial here. So I don't think it's ever happened. And we look forward to getting that far. If I may, Rebecca had a question on the chat. The question was, could you explain how the Fourth Amendment protection? How'd she let her hand it? Yeah, yeah. Yes. Go ahead, Rebecca. Go ahead. Yes, hi. So I just, this is just a technical thing, but I wanted to understand how Fourth Amendment protections covered you if you were in a foreign embassy, and does that apply also to a foreign country? Or is this because it was an intelligence, a US intelligence spying on a US citizen? So the simple answer is the Fourth Amendment protects US citizens anywhere in the world. If it's an American, if it's the FBI or the CIA or a local law enforcement US agency, they can't go in to take information from a US citizen without a search warrant. They have to go to a judge, they have to show probable cause, and then they can go in. So the answer is because they're US citizens, it's not just in an embassy. And because the CIA is the actor, they cannot, they just can't do what they did. And then the other part of my question was, did any of the plaintiffs experience anything as a result of that illegal search, the allegation of illegal search? Did they personally experience intrusion or hacking as a result of it or no? The answer to, I'm sorry, if I can just jump in. No, go ahead, go ahead. The answer to this is that we know that there, we know through the Spanish discovery in the Spanish criminal investigation of UC Global and the material that's been uncovered there that shows the connection between the CIA and UC Global that as a matter of practice, the cell phones and other devices and materials that were left with security guards when visitors were visiting Julian Assange were systematically opened, the contents downloaded, photographs taken of the inside and outside, SIM card information taken, possible tracking devices installed. Until we get the discovery, we won't know- The extent of it. To the extent to which we've been followed since, but we have every reason to, we have no reason to think that we weren't treated the same as everybody else that visited the embassy. And our information does come to the Spanish proceeding. This is not a goose chase. We know from statements, affidavits, et cetera, that they went in and took information. Think about it. Deborah Beck's a perfect example. Let's assume she has 30 clients on her laptop with communications for the CIA not only to violate the Fourth Amendment, but to have that attorney client protected information and their possession, it's like Deb said, it's horrifying. Yeah, got it. I have a question. Go ahead, Lee. You've been waiting patiently. Thank you. No, thank you. First off, Attorney Roth, congratulations on the major victory and congratulations to the entire team. I was wondering if you found anything out about the role of Sheldon Adelson, the Republican financier, or you intend to pursue that? Do you want me to speak to that? It's fine, Deb. You could start now, Phil, and go ahead. Okay, yeah. I mean, what we do know from the Spanish investigation is that the CIA actually recruited the Spanish security team that was guarding the embassy at the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas in January of 2017, and that it was Sheldon Adelson's security team who made the approach and who are believed to be some of the handlers. So he was very deeply involved. In fact, we also have information that suggests that the payment to UC Global for their services in order to avoid exposing the US government directly was made by Sheldon Adelson to UC Global purportedly to be protecting him on his private yachts, which is extremely, why would they pay a Spanish security company to do that? So Sheldon Adelson's similarly to what happened in Macau, which some of you may have followed, we think it's exactly the same MO that's going on here. Thank you. Kara, I know you have a question. You're saying too- Yeah, it was more of just a suggestion. I know like it's hard to get stuff like this. Can you hear me? Sorry. Can you adjust to your, so we can see you? I don't know if it's the greatest, but yeah, hi. I was gonna make the suggestion that, I've been about how I've been for a long time trying to get a lot of stuff out into the mainstream media about the prisoners from January 6th. I know this isn't related, but the way I went about doing it to crack it into the mainstream is like really going through the alternate media podcasters that have tremendous followings. And then the mainstream media is almost forced to pick it up because there's a crossover audience. So if you go on those like podcasters that really believe in this and that have no like, like say someone like Tim Castor, all of these podcasters that don't have overseeing people like a corporation that's telling them what to say and what to do, it'll sort of force like a Fox News and I guess a CNN to pick it up if they see that people are talking about it. That's just a suggestion I wanted to make. And I also think that someone like Tucker Carlson now is pretty free in what he could say and do and he would be really interested. And as I've heard him speak at times, I believe about Julian Assange in a favorable way. So that was just a suggestion I thought I would make. Going through the alternate podcasters, they're more powerful now, like someone like Tucker or somebody, you know, they're more powerful than Fox News. People listen, more people pay attention more to what they have to say. Richard's going to be on with Jimmy Dore next week. Great. He's already done some, but you're right. I mean, it's ridiculous. Every single national security correspondent or reporter in the United States was sent about four emails on this. So there is almost a blacklisting still of WikiLeaks and of Assange in the U.S. Very scary. Part of the national security establishment. Rebecca, I think you have a, do you still have a question or is your hand just up to be up? I think that answers that. All right, are there any other questions? If I could make one final comment about the intersection of the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment. Mike Pompeo and lawyers at the DOJ claim that Julian Assange had no First Amendment rights. He can't be invoking the First Amendment. Of course they've had the audacity to try to enforce the infamous espionage act of 1917 against a foreign journalist in a foreign country. But what I find beautiful about this lawsuit, as Richard has explained, as far as the CIA is concerned and the conspiracies that are alleged here, the Fourth Amendment does apply to American citizens in a foreign country. So there is some symmetry to the fact that it is this lawsuit that will be demanding transparency of the kind that the CIA has previously denied and will finally allow these plaintiffs and in their stead, the American people to expose the CIA to this kind of legitimate rule of law and the kind of civil discovery that we depend on. And I think that's what makes this ruling and the case itself so important. Thank you very much. Okay, if anybody watching wants to interview or speak with any of the panelists, please again, my email is Trevor, t-r-e-v-o-r-f-g at protonmail.com. And with that, let's free Assange. Thanks everybody for joining us. Thank you. Thank you.